Preview

Science Editor and Publisher

Advanced search

Misconduct of images: Guidance for biomedical authors and editors

https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2020-1-40-46

Full Text:

Abstract

Misconduct in terms of manipulation of images has become an increasingly serious issue for the scientific community, especially in biomedicine. Such misconduct takes many forms, the major categories being falsified or fabricated images, manipulated images, and plagiarized images. Different tools and techniques are briefly described to help authors and editors in detecting such misconduct, and guidance is offered on appropriate use of images under different situations. More specifically, CrossRef Similarity Check, Motuin, and Droplets are proposed as the tools of choice for detecting similarity between images and their possible manipulation.

About the Authors

Oing Ye
Journal of Zhejiang University - SCIENCE B (Biomedicine & Biotechnology)
China

Oing Ye - Journal of Zhejiang University - SCIENCE B (Biomedicine & Biotechnology).

Hangzhou



Hanfeng Lin
Journal of Zhejiang University - SCIENCE B (Biomedicine & Biotechnology)
China

Hanfeng Lin - Journal of Zhejiang University - SCIENCE B (Biomedicine & Biotechnology).

Hangzhou



References

1. Bik E. M., Casadevall A., Fang F. C. The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. MBio. 2016;7(3):e00809-16. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00809-16.

2. Smart P., Gaston T. How prevalent are plagiarized submissions? Global survey of editors. Learned Publishing. 2019;32(l):47-56. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1218.

3. The Lancet Editors. Retraction - engineered whole organs and complex tissues. The Lancet. 2018;392(10141):11. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31560-5.

4. PubPeer. Retracted: engineered whole organs and complex tissues. Available at: https://pubpeer.eom/publicatio ns/910C2D0D4837D572131F744F0BD575# [Accessed 11 June 2019].

5. Zhang Y. H. Against plagiarism: a guide for editors and authors. Cham: Springer; 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24160-9.

6. COPE. English: all flowcharts. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts-new/ translations [Accessed 11 June 2019].

7. Taichman D. B., Sahni P., Pinborg A. et al. Data sharing statements for clinical trials. BMJ. 2017;357:j2372. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j2372.

8. Rossner M., Yamada K. M. What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. Journal of Cell Biology. 2004;166(1):11-15. DOI: 10.1083/jcb.200406019.

9. Van Noorden R. The image detective who roots out manuscript flaws. Nature News. 2015. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2015.17749.

10. Hurtik P., Hodakova P. FTIP: A tool for an image plagiarism detection. In: 7th International Conference of Soft Computing and Pattern Recognition (SoCPaR), Fukuoka, Japan, 13-15 November 2015. IEEE; 2015. pp. 42-47. DOI: 10.1109/SOCPAR.2015.7492780.

11. Acuna D. E., Brookes P. S., Kording K. P. Bioscience-scale automated detection of figure element reuse. bioRxiv. 2018:269415. DOI: 10.1101/269415.

12. Butler D. Researchers have finally created a tool to spot duplicated images across thousands of papers. Nature. 2018;555(7694):18. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-02421-3.

13. Brookes P. What if we could scan for image duplication the way we check for plagiarism? Retraction Watch. 2018. Available at: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/04/what-if-we-could-scan-for-image-duplication-the-way-we-check-for-plagiarism [Accessed 11 June 2019].

14. Council of Science Editors. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. 2018. Available at: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org [Accessed 11 June 2019].

15. Nature. Image integrity and standards. Available at: https://www.nature.com/authors/policies/image.html [Accessed 11 June 2019].

16. The New England Journal of Medicine. Editorial Policies. Available at: https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/editorial-policies [Accessed 11 June 2019].

17. Commitee on Publication Ethics. Guidelines for retracting articles. DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.4.

18. Wager E., Kleinert S., Garfinkel M. et al. Cooperation and Liaison between Universities and Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice. bioRxiv. 2017:139170. DOI: 10.1101/139170.

19. Zhuang L., Guo T., Zhang B. In vivo bioelectronic nose. In: Wang P., Liu O., Wu C., Hsia K. (eds). Bioinspired Smell and Taste Sensors. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015, pp 167-196. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-7333-1_9.


For citation:


Ye O., Lin H. Misconduct of images: Guidance for biomedical authors and editors. Science Editor and Publisher. 2020;5(1):40-46. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2020-1-40-46

Views: 478


ISSN 2542-0267 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8122 (Online)